I know Dan and I agree that we prefer Gay Marriage, Domestic Partnerships and/or Civil Unions happen in the context of “the marketplace” (aka – The States) than by judicial fiat through the courts.

Therefore, I philosophically believe that the Prop 8 voters should be respected by the Supreme Court, though that would mean a further struggle in the marketplace in California to see gay marriage. Other states have accomplished it; quite quickly in fact.

Breitbart News has learned exclusively that Clint Eastwood has signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The brief, which will be released later this evening, has signatures from more than 100 Republican and conservative activists. It involves the case before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn CA’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Eastwood isn’t the story, folks. He’s probably always been pro-gay marriage — if not vocally. No, it is the names that previously opposed SSM, but will appear on this amicus brief.

33 Comments

The marketplace may be working, but these 100 folks still signed on to a brief asking SCOTUS to strike Prop 8 down as being unconstitutional. I personally have no problem with this since I agree with them, yet such a move by them seems to be inconsistent with what you advocate on this matter. IOW the “marketplace” seems to be influenced by the very lawsuits you have objected to.

I still with the Civil Union crowd. I believe that if marriage is a state issue right now, and it IS the states who currently issue marriage licenses, then this issue too should be up to each state.

I think that a federal ban on Gay marriage would carry a much higher burden of proof than a state ban in this matter. It’s easier to see a federal ban being thrown out. But states DO have a degree of legal sovereignty. That’s how our system is designed to work.

And even with a ban on Gay marriage, isn’t a civil union technically a private contract? Why would a Gay marriage ban affect the formation of a civil union?

gastorgrab – Depending on which ban you refer to. Bush at one point supported a federal ban that would disallow states from even doing civil unions; later amendment text only said that no constitution requires it, though states could still create them legislatively if they chose to.
So, it would come down to how anti-gay the law was, really; one of the versions ever passed anyway, let alone made it to the states for ratification.

Last – marriage is a state licensing issue, yes, but Loving v Virginia controls how much the states can interfere with their citizens’ right to enter into such a contract.

Loving v Virginia controls how much the states can interfere with their citizens’ right to enter into such a contract.

There is an ocean of difference between Loving v Virginia in complying with the 14th Amendment and Gay Marriage complying with the 14th Amendment.

In Loving v Virginia concerned the state denying due process because of race. Had the denial been based on religion, height, weight, or ethnicity, the state would have been required (as it was in Loving) to show a compelling state interest in why race should be a factor in the case where one man and one woman who are not too closely related and of high enough mental capacity to understand what they are doing and old enough to comprehend the importance of the contract should be denied marriage. (Whew!)

Gay Marriage is an alternative form of marriage and those seeking gay marriage are not prevented from marriage due to race, ethnicity, height, or religion. Gay Marriage requires a fundamental redefinition of marriage that permits same gender marriage. Another fundamental change would be the number of partners.

Such changes can be cast as a civil rights issue if government de jure or de facto oppression can be demonstrated. To make that case, it is first necessary to arouse the public favorably to the cause.

The state legislatures are the appropriate arena for this debate. The courts are NOT the appropriate place to gauge the will of the people. In Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, the Supreme Court considered the due process rights of the children and the compelling state reason that divided the children by race while receiving a compulsory public education. While the decision in Brown might not have pleased the “will of the people” in certain states, the case was appropriate because the state created a division based on race that could not be shown to in the interest of the state in it duty of promoting the general welfare.

Your gender is a clear biological determination. Gonads develop in the womb to become either testicles of ovaries. Gender reassignment surgery does not turn testicles into ovaries or ovaries into testicles. In extremely rare cases of gonadal dysgenesis the whole gender identity is pure chaos and confusion in science terms. Classically speaking, gonadal dysgenesis is “the exception that proves the rule” in terms of gender identification.

While we have gender reassignment surgery that helps a person deal with his inner emotions of gender identity, I suspect that most would agree that Michael Jackson’s efforts to realign his racial characteristics was strange odyssey in which the courts had no proper role to play.

Both the public square and the courts are difficult places to play out gender identification issues.

The core issue of gay marriage is one in which I have found gays to be totally deaf. The issue is whether there is any compelling reason for the state to recognize marriage of any sort or to enact laws and write regulations that involve marriage. If there is a compelling reason for the state to recognize marriage, what is the rationale for age, number of spouses, mental capacity, kinship, and gender regulation? And how does the separation of church and state permit the state to overrule a religion-based belief that is not in accord with the state?

Ogden Nash wrote: Some primal termite knocked on wood and tasted it, and found it good! And that is why your Cousin May fell through the parlor floor today.

When we start knocking on the foundations of traditional marriage we need to be able to look past our immediate goals and see what pulling a traditional thread may lead us into. If civil unions can satisfy the complications with the state, what is the goal and target that lies beyond civil unions that will be addressed by gay marriage?

As a conservative concerned with stabilizing families to rely less on government aid, I have been convinced: I’ve been worrying about the wrong thing. Stopping same-sex marriages does nothing to support families battered by economic adversity. Instead, it excludes and punishes people who seek only to live as conservatives would urge them to live. Treating same-sex partnerships differently from husband-wife marriages only serves to divide and antagonize those who ought to be working together.

Like many signatories of the amicus brief, my thinking has been influenced by the fine example of the many committed, devoted same-sex couples I know. At least as much, however, I have also been swayed by an intensifying awareness of the harm culture-war politics has done to my party. Culture-war politics have isolated the GOP from the America of the present and future, fastening it to politics of nostalgia for a (mis)remembered past. Culture-war politics have substituted for relevant cultural policies aimed at encouraging the raising of children within married families. Worst of all, culture-war politics has taught the GOP to talk to America as if the nation were split into hostile halves, as if more separates Americans than unites them.

I don’t think it is an earthquake. Rather it’s a tremor related to the earthquake within the Republican party, and conservatism in general.

Given the majority of conservatives surveyed support traditional marriage (including support of DP legislation, or ‘Fred’) I think this just is another sign of the split between the ground and the
leadership.

The question will then become, how long can they ‘lead’ if fewer and fewer are following them?

@Bruce: I seem to recall differently, but okay. I’ll take your word for it. My own view is similar in that I would prefer legislative action rather than court proceedings and unlike you even referendums. Since I view Prop 8 as violating the US Constitution though, I’ll settle for a court ruling if that’s what it takes. I must say though that I’d be quite surprised if SCOTUS gave anything far-reaching for SSM this year.

Still don’t understand why people need their relationships validated by bureaucrat’s signature; as if they don’t matter otherwise. And I understand why this issue is more important than eliminating our deficits or growing our economy.

Liberal Priorities, I guess. Liberal Priorities are why in New York State, possession of a 10-round magazine is now a worse felony than child-rape.

Ironic that as our society teeters on the edge of fiscal and economic collapse, everybody is obsessed with gay marriage. Maybe those people who have always said that Teh Gheys would be the downfall of civilization will turn out to be right after all.

There is no economic force to speak of driving this specific issue. Those that genuinely had a change of heart…. The reasons for that have been out there in the wild of public discourse for a very long time. There is no new revelation here where those on the list who fall in this category can point to and say “Oh, here’s some new information on this that has caused me to change my position”. Further, I think we can agree that many of the signators on this list were privately for same sex marriage, but, up till now, expressed just the opposite.

Why the change of heart? Or why are the other finally expressing their true opinions on this?

Part of it is almost certainly repercussions of the loss to Obama in the last election. Had Romney won, I doubt this list ever would have been written or these sudden changes of hearts never would have been voiced. It’s political pressure not market forces that made this happen.

There isn’t much I can put in this column, but it’s one thing I give credit to President Obama for making it safe for politicians to support same sex marriage. Yes, as I wrote, I am fully aware of the reasons why he “evolved” on this matter – to buy / secure votes that were up to that point not committing to him. I expected more Dems to follow him and be more honest about their true views, I didn’t expect the can of proverbial worms to open on the other side of the isle.

Well, that’s the thing, V. I’ve pointed this out a million times. At the end of the day, even if there was to be a mandatory gay wedding in Times Square every hour on the hour, no law can make anybody deal with anybody they don’t want to in their personal affairs. You don’t have to accept anybody, no matter how much try to guilt you into doing so.

Rusty, on your link. Most of those companies have been offering same sex benefits for years, some for a decade or more. There is no evidence that I can see that Conservatives change because of them. If so, we would have seen this shift years ago.

At the end of the day, even if there was to be a mandatory gay wedding in Times Square every hour on the hour, no law can make anybody deal with anybody they don’t want to in their personal affairs. You don’t have to accept anybody, no matter how much try to guilt you into doing so.

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

In short, Douglas, those are not one, not two, but THREE high government officials that make it clear people WILL be forced to accept all of these things, or they are to be punished directly by governmental power.

And now what people see is the gay and lesbian community and political leaders insisting that votes no longer matter, that people have no right to write their own laws or amend their own constitutions, and that the rights explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights are to be ignored in favor of ones conjured out of thin air.

In a way, I’m glad this is happening. People needed to see that gay marriage was never about marriage; it was, like gun control, nothing more than an excuse for fascists to ignore the Constitution, ignore peoples’ rights, and force through “progressive” wet dreams about punishing and destroying churches and peoples’ religious beliefs.

Feel better, NDT? I sure hope so. Now let me ask you this: On a matter of legality (not on how you feel about gay marriage or the left per se, that’s obvious… and I agree 100% BTW), what do you feel should be done with DOMA?

It should be left alone, because there is no constitutional right whatsoever to gay marriage and the Federal government can with perfect right dictate what will and what won’t be recognized when it comes to Federal benefits.

Nor is there any logic here. The estate tax, Social Security survivor benefits, hospital visitation, the removal of imputed income tax on health benefits, all the other things that DOMA opponents shriek about, could have been removed a LONG time ago had they actually been issues.

But since the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community did NOT demand that the estate tax be repealed, that Social Security survivor benefits be changed to a designated-beneficiary model, that powers of healthcare attorney be established as standard, and that the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance be changed — all things, mind you, that would have overwhelming Republican support — then their screaming about them now is hypocrisy.

So you support using the federal government to push what you like, but hate it when the other side does it. At best you’re a statist and leftist in disguise, NDT. That’s why I don’t sweat you. I am not Levi, and you will learn not to come at me like that. I did not attack you, but since you started it, hey that’s cool.

So you support using the federal government to push what you like, but hate it when the other side does it.

Comment by Douglas — March 3, 2013 @ 3:58 am – March 3, 2013

Actually, here’s what I stated:

It should be left alone, because there is no constitutional right whatsoever to gay marriage and the Federal government can with perfect right dictate what will and what won’t be recognized when it comes to Federal benefits.

“Can” is not the same as “should” or “must”.

Furthermore, if you’ll note, everything that I advocated doing is a reduction in governmental intervention. No estate tax, no imputed income tax penalty, individual choice of to whom to designate as your beneficiary and power of attorney, all of these explicitly REMOVE the state from the business of ratifying or having to “approve” relationships.

Federal benefits, NDT. Just like any true statist, you want your own little set of “Benefits” given to you by the Fed… solely because you’re in a certain kind of relationship or group of people. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, period, NDT, let alone “Federal benefits”. And all matters not secified in the Constitution are to be handled BY THE STATES, are they not? Yet it becomes a “living document” when, once again, there’s something in it for you.